911 Truth by neophyteblogger

VIEWS: 845 PAGES: 36

More Info
									The Truth about the “9/11 Truth Movement”
A look at the claims in the pamphlet distributed by NY911truth.org in New York City
May, 2006 Commentary by Mark Roberts email: itmatters@mail.com

Reader, something to keep in mind throughout this document: Questions are not evidence.

Thus begins a long series of allegations and assumptions posing as facts that are stated as questions. This is a type of logical fallacy known as the “complex question.” If the people in NY9/11truth.org have “truth” to communicate, they could simply make their claims and provide supporting evidence. Instead, they take this sly, roundabout approach, which enables them to avoid providing evidence that would help answer their own questions. I’ll let you, reader, judge if this is an honest approach to take in a pamphlet that is distributed to the general public by a “Truth Movement.” The second sentence of the first paragraph in the pamphlet contains three logical fallacies. The first one is a doozy: that the 9/11 Commission must have covered up the cause of the terrorist attacks, because David Ray Griffin says there are problems with their report. If this is the kind of logic that’s going to be used in a search for “truth,” I’m very worried. I highly recommend that the authors of the 911truth.org literature read up on the basics of logic and critical thinking. A good place to start is James Lett’s concise “Field Guide to Critical Thinking” at http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html The suggestion that the 9/11 Commission addressed none of the questions in this pamphlet is incorrect. Nor was it any commission’s job to poll everyone on earth before proceeding with an investigation. 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick said that the Commission would use victims’ families’ questions as a "road map," not that every question would or could be addressed. It is good to provide evidence that important questions went unanswered by the 9/11 Commission. It is wrong to accuse the commissioners of malfeasance because you’re unhappy that they didn’t answer all of the questions in your head. People who rely heavily on the ideas of David Ray Griffin in a search for truth about 9/11 are more than treading on thin ice: they have fallen right through. Griffin has made a second career of making wild conspiracy claims that ignore mountains of contradictory evidence. Many of Griffin’s claims about 9/11 are refutable with only minutes of research. He is a very poor guide to the truth about 9/11.

I’d like to see the evidence that most people’s reaction to 9/11 was entirely emotional. That certainly wasn’t the case with me or with anyone I know. And while we “objectively examine the unreported facts,” lets remember to do the same with all of the reported facts.

I don’t find the questions shocking, and they haven’t “revealed” anything. I rely on evidence for that. It is a fallacy to imply that because our government’s leaders have lied about other things, their account of 9/11 is also a lie. We will see if any evidence is presented that the U.S. government has lied about the cause and perpetrators of 9/11.

This is like one of those “before and after” cosmetic surgery ads in which the “before” photo is deliberately unflattering, with harsh directional lighting. True, the quality of the “confession” video is very poor, as is the quality of this reproduction, but did the “truth-seekers” really use a representative video still? For example, at right is another video still of Bin Laden. It’s also from a poor-quality video with bad lighting, but I think we can agree that he looks like the “long nose” Bin Laden in the photo on the above right, yes? But if I had chosen the worst still from that video, bin Laden might look more like me or like Fidel Castro or like the guy in the photo at the above left. Well guess what? The still at right is also from the confession video. It’s the same man, in the same setting, as the “short nose” Bin Laden. My, how deceiving people can be when they cherry-pick information! So, “truth seekers,” what do you have to say for yourselves? How interested are you in finding the truth? I await your answer.


Bin Laden appears in the confession video for about 30 minutes, but the “truth seekers” pick the SINGLE worst frame of him and claim it’s an actor. They claim the discovery of the video by the military was “miraculous,” i.e. impossible. They say it was made by the Pentagon. They say “The U.S. news media has yet to report that the video is a fake.” I know one thing: someone’s nose isn’t getting shorter around here. Truth seekers, perhaps you’re forgetting that some people actually investigate your claims out and find them wanting. And when someone discovers that you’ve been trying to fool them, how likely is it that they will “report on any of the news stories” you think are important? More stills from the Bin Laden confession tape




A. Bin Laden is 6’4”-6’6” tall. This man had to duck going through the doorway. B. Short nose? C. His typical big watch, and ring on the right hand. Conspiracy theorists (referred to hereafter as “CTs”) like to point out that Islam forbids men to wear gold, and that this can’t be Bin Laden because he wouldn’t be wearing a gold ring. However, Bin Laden appears in many photos wearing a ring. The man sitting to Bin Laden’s right in the video also wears a ring. The rings are gold in color. Are they made of gold? Perhaps they are. This should be self-evident, but Bin Laden is not known as a stickler for keeping to Islamic law. Critics have also said that this video must be a fake because it shows bin Laden writing with his right hand, and an FBI report says bin Laden is lefthanded. However, other videos, such as “The Paladin of Jihad,” (http://www.karim.co.nr/) show bin Laden writing with his right hand, so that argument is also false. The photos below are not from the confession video. They show bin Laden’s ring and right-handed writing.


Some 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim that bin Laden and al Qaeda either don’t exist or are actually run by the U.S. government. That is false. Al Qaeda and bin Laden remain terrorist threats, and bin Laden has taken credit for the 9/11 attacks, and promised more, several times. One of his more notorious speeches is the “no security” videotape, which can be seen, with a transcript by al-Jazeera, here: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Bunkum like this is what comes of too much David Ray Griffin. On 9/11, the normal contingent of 14 fighters was on alert to protect the U.S. Four of those were responsible for the northeast: two at the Otis ANG base on Cape Cod and two at Langley AFB in southern Virginia. Had it been 1980, many more fighters would have been available. When the cold war ended, budget cuts greatly reduced the number of fighters on alert. Before 9/11 NORAD was responsible for identifying intruders coming from outside U.S and Canadian borders, not from within. This is quite obvious when we look at the locations of the 7 alert bases in 2001. Oregon ANG, Portland, Oregon March ARB, Riverside, California Ellington ANG, Houston, Texas Tyndall AFB, Panama City, Florida Homestead ARB, Homestead, Florida Langley AFB, Hampton, Virginia Otis ANG, Falmouth, Massachusetts All seven alert bases were on the coast. Air Force planes were often available for internal intercepts but did not take a proactive role: because the FAA monitored this traffic, the FAA would have to request NORAD to find available fighter aircraft if needed. The idea that in 2001 67 planes were intercepted within 10-15 minutes after straying off course is ludicrous. It normally could take that long for a scramble order to be received. Then a pilot would have to finish gearing up, get to the plane, power up, take off, reach altitude and speed, and get to the target. From the time the scramble order was given, the goal was 10 minutes to takeoff, but I don’t know if that was often achieved. From the 9/11 Commission report:
Before 9/11, it was not unheard of for a commercial aircraft to deviate slightly from its course, or for an FAA controller to lose radio contact with a pilot for a short period of time. A controller could also briefly lose a commercial aircraft's transponder signal, although this happened much less frequently. However, the simultaneous loss of radio and transponder signal would be a rare and alarming occurrence, and would normally indicate a catastrophic system failure or an aircraft crash. In all of these instances, the job of the controller was to reach out to the aircraft, the parent company of the aircraft, and other planes in the vicinity in an attempt to reestablish communications and set the aircraft back on course. Alarm bells would not start ringing until these efforts-which could take five minutes or more-were tried and had failed.


And today, in 2006? "NORAD is now linked up telephonically 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so anything that's an anomaly or a suspected anomaly that's found in the system, NORAD knows about it as quickly as we do," said David Canoles, FAA's manager of air traffic evaluations and investigations. (ABC News, August 13, 2002) Would the hijacked planes have been easy to find? No. The hijackers turned off the planes’ identifying transponders, so that Air Traffic Control would have to sort them out from a few thousand radar blips on screen in the northeast. And NORAD’s radar system mostly looked outward from the coast, not inward. Contrary to conspiracy theorist claims that air defenses had “stood down” on 9/11, they were unusually “geared up.” Because of the semiannual exercises that had been going on for several days, NORAD radar stations and battle rooms were fully staffed, with top commanders there to make decisions. A good overview of the activity at NEADS, NORAD’s northeastern U.S. command post, is here: http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/defense/aviationnow_jumpstart.htm On 9/11 the U.S. air defense system was not “engaged in as many as 15 war games simulating hijacks and attacks.” There is specifically no record of hijacking drills being performed. The only military radar “clutter” was on NORAD screens in Colorado, and was eliminated as soon as the real-world alert was issued. http://911myths.com/html/on_the_record___.html The idea that Dick Cheney is “suspect” because he knew of normal war game activity is extremely odd. Thousands of people knew of the same war games. Hundreds planned them. Are they all suspect? Next, the truthsters accept Senator Dayton’s statement that the Air Force “sent F-15s in the wrong direction,” and jump to the additional conclusion that a conspiracy was involved in the alleged diversion. Here is NORAD’s timeline of events: American Airlines Flight 11 Boston enroute to Los Angeles FAA Notification to NEADS 0840 Fighter Scramble Order (Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Mass. Two F-15s) 0846 Fighters Airborne 0852 Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 1) 0846 (estimated) Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location Aircraft not airborne/153 miles United Airlines Flight 175 Boston enroute to Los Angeles FAA Notification to NEADS 0843* Fighter Scramble Order (Otis ANGB, Falmouth, Mass. Same 2 F-15s as Flight 11) 0846 Fighters Airborne 0852 Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 2) 0902 (estimated) Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 8 min/71 miles American Flight 77 Dulles, Washington, D.C., enroute to Los Angeles FAA Notification to NEADS 0924 Fighter Scramble Order (Langley AFB, Hampton, Va. 2 F-16s) 0924 Fighters Airborne 0930 Airline Impact Time (Pentagon) 0937(estimated) Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 12 min/105 miles United Flight 93 Newark to San Francisco FAA Notification to NEADS N/A Fighter Scramble Order (Langley F-16s already airborne for AA Flt 77) Fighters Airborne (Langley F-16 CAP remains in place to protect DC) Airline Impact Time (Pennsylvania) 1003 (estimated) Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 11 min/100 miles (from DC F-16 CAP)


*NORAD’s time of 8:43 is incorrect. We know that the two F-15 pilots out of Otis were in a holding pattern in military airspace off Long Island, about 70 miles from Manhattan, when they learned that flight 175 had also hit the WTC. NORAD had not been notified by United Airlines or the FAA of flight 175’s status as a probable hijack. As for the FAA’s culpability, the 9/11 Commission report does say the FAA did not follow proper procedure for notifying the military: Military Notification and Response. Boston Center did not follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command. In addition to notifications within the FAA, Boston Center took the initiative, at 8:34, to contact the military through the FAA's Cape Cod facility. The center also tried to contact a former alert site in Atlantic City, unaware it had been phased out. At 8:37:52, Boston Center reached NEADS. This was the first notification received by the military – at any level – that American 11 had been hijacked. And: In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes before it struck the North Tower. That nine minutes' notice before impact was the most the military would receive of any of the four hijackings. (This conflicts with at least one report that says NORAD was informed that flight 77 was a hijack at 9:25. That flight hit the Pentagon at approx. 9:38. See “The Complete 9/11 Timeline”

Langley Fighters Placed on Battle Stations: Because the Otis fighters had expended a great deal of fuel in flying first to military airspace and then to New York, the battle commanders were concerned about refueling. NEADS considered scrambling alert fighters from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to New York, to provide backup. The Langley fighters were placed on battle stations at 9:09. NORAD had no indication that any other plane had been hijacked. Confusion Over flight 77 and flight 11, Fighters Head in Wrong Direction. Mission Crew Commander, NEADS: Okay, uh, American Airlines is still airborne. Eleven, the first guy, he's heading towards Washington. Okay? I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I'm gonna take the fighters from Otis, try to chase this guy down if I can find him. After consulting with NEADS command, the crew commander issued the order at 9:23: "Okay . . . scramble Langley. Head them towards the Washington area.. . . [I]f they're there then we'll run on them.. . .These guys are smart." That order was processed and transmitted to Langley Air Force Base at 9:24. Radar data show the Langley fighters airborne at 9:30. NEADS decided to keep the Otis fighters over New York. The heading of the Langley fighters was adjusted to send them to the Baltimore area. The mission crew commander explained to us that the purpose was to position the Langley fighters between the reported southbound American 11 and the nation's capital. At the suggestion of the Boston Center's military liaison, NEADS contacted the FAA's Washington Center to ask about American 11. In the course of the conversation, a Washington Center manager informed NEADS: "We're looking-we also lost American 77."The time was 9:34.151This was the first notice to the military that American 77 was missing, and it had come by chance. If NEADS had not placed that call, the NEADS air defenders would have received no information whatsoever that the flight was even missing, although the FAA had been searching for it. No one at FAA headquarters ever asked for military assistance with American 77.


At 9:36, the FAA's Boston Center called NEADS and relayed the discovery about an unidentified aircraft closing in on Washington: "Latest report. Aircraft VFR [visual flight rules] six miles southeast of the White House. . . . Six, southwest. Six, southwest of the White House, deviating away." This startling news prompted the mission crew commander at NEADS to take immediate control of the airspace to clear a flight path for the Langley fighters: "Okay, we're going to turn it . . . crank it up. . . . Run them to the White House." He then discovered, to his surprise, that the Langley fighters were not headed north toward the Baltimore area as instructed, but east over the ocean. "I don't care how many windows you break," he said. "Damn it.. . . Okay. Push them back." The Langley fighters were heading east, not north, for three reasons. First, unlike a normal scramble order, this order did not include a distance to the target or the target's location. Second, a "generic" flight plan-prepared to get the aircraft airborne and out of local airspace quickly-incorrectly led the Langley fighters to believe they were ordered to fly due east (090) for 60 miles. Third, the lead pilot and local FAA controller incorrectly assumed the flight plan instruction to go "090 for 60" superseded the original scramble order. After the 9:36 call to NEADS about the unidentified aircraft a few miles from the White House, the Langley fighters were ordered to Washington, D.C. Controllers at NEADS located an unknown primary radar track, but "it kind of faded" over Washington. The time was 9:38.The Pentagon had been struck by American 77 at 9:37:46.The Langley fighters were about 150 miles away. Right after the Pentagon was hit, NEADS learned of another possible hijacked aircraft. It was an aircraft that in fact had not been hijacked at all. After the second World Trade Center crash, Boston Center managers recognized that both aircraft were transcontinental 767 jetliners that had departed Logan Airport. Remembering the "we have some planes" remark, Boston Center guessed that Delta 1989 might also be hijacked. Boston Center called NEADS at 9:41 and identified Delta 1989, a 767 jet that had left Logan Airport for Las Vegas, as a possible hijack. NEADS warned the FAA's Cleveland Center to watch Delta 1989.The Command Center and FAA headquarters watched it too. During the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft. The report of American 11 heading south was the first; Delta 1989 was the second: Confusion? Absolutely. Major problems that needed fixing? You bet. Should we be pushing to find out if those problems have been fixed? Certainly. Evidence of conspiracy? None.

A brief overview from a fairly impartial source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0517/p01s02-usju.html No specific warnings were received. As for Moussaoui, it took a long time to get action, but he was arrested before 9/11.


Okay, now the Truthers are on to something. As far as I can tell, the story of Sibel Edmonds is important and deserves attention. In my opinion NY911Truth.org would do well to spend more time getting the word out about stories like hers. A good summary from NY911Truth.org’s website: [From Sept. 20, 2001 to March 2002] Sibel Edmonds worked as a language specialist for the FBI’s Washington Field Office [She had top-secret clearance]. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications. After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court proceedings on her issues have been blocked by the assertion of “State Secret Privilege” and the Congress of the United States has been gagged and prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive re-classification by the Department of Justice. Specifically, Edmonds says she uncovered untranslated and poorly-translated documents that were gathered prior to 9/11 and that pointed to an aircraft-as-missile plot. I don’t know if this information would have been specific enough to stop the attacks had it been uncovered earlier. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft apparently took the step of having her case “retroactively classified.” She is gagged from giving any details about what she knows. She says that she brought her concerns to the highest level, including Director Mueller, and was stonewalled and eventually fired. While there are no doubt national security implications to the case, and intelligence-gathering methods to protect, much of the Sibel Edmonds case smacks of cover-up of incompetence and retribution against a real truth-teller. See her website, and contribute to her legal fund, here: http://www.justacitizen.com/

The first item is a strange little story. From the Washington Post, May 7, 2004: The report found that an FAA manager tape-recorded an hour-long interview with the controllers just hours after the hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. His intention was to provide the information quickly to the FBI. But months after the recording, the tape was never turned over to the FBI and another FAA manager decided on his own to destroy the tape, crushing it with his hand, cutting it into small pieces and depositing the pieces into several trash cans, the report said. The controllers in question had been debriefed by the FAA and FBI, so it’s unlikely that the tape contained news of great importance, but FAA rules required keeping such evidence for at least five years. As for the “secret” black boxes, I’m not sure which are meant. Black boxes were recovered from flights 93 and 77, but only the information from 93 was usable. A fireman at Ground Zero reported finding boxes from flights 11 and 175 and turning them over to federal officials, but he only made that claim in a self-published book and he refuses to verify it since. That would have been very big news, So I suspect the fireman is telling a fib. We have the advantage of knowing what happened to the planes, based partly on phone calls made by passengers, so I don’t think that the black boxes are as important as they would be in other air disasters.


Now you’re back in deep again. Haven’t you checked sources on this since September of 2001? There Is ZERO evidence that any stock traders had foreknowledge of 9/11. The matter has been thoroughly investigated, and the “put” options just before 9/11 all have reasonable explanations. The volume of the UAL trades was not suspicious (and was not the highest of the year), and the put options on American made all the sense in the world, as American had just announced several items of bad news and projected losses. Two major institutional investors made almost all of these trades, and no one has produced a shred of evidence that these companies had knowledge of 9/11. The quote from the “Institute of Counter Terrorism” in Israel is from a piece published on Sept. 19, 2001. It helps to gather facts before making judgments.
From the 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 5, note 130 Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options--investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price--surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10--highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004). 911myths.com has covered this issue in depth: http://www.911myths.com/html/selling_amr.html

What evidence does NY911truth.org have that there are additional videos? They present none. The crash, “from start to finish” was about a quarter of a second. I am utterly baffled as to why anyone needs any video of the Pentagon crash to confirm what happened there. The dozens of eyewitnesses, hundreds of still photos, and hundreds of investigators haven’t provided enough information? Do anyone argue that the American


Revolutionary War didn’t happen because no photos or videos of it exist? As for “withholding” evidence, privately-owned videos and photos can be used for investigative purposes and as evidence in trials, but after that they become the property of their original owners. The government cannot, by law, just “release” these to the public…just look at the litigation over the Zapruder film. The “5 frames” were released because they were from a Pentagon security camera, and we, the people own that. In May, 2006, responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, the U.S. government issued what they say is its only remaining video that shows the cradh of flight 77 at all: again, a very brief glimpse. The Pentagon uses “live” perimiter security, mostly men in vehicles. In 2001 there were very few security cameras pointing at the building, and cameras at other locations were, naturally, pointing at those properties. Anyway, when conspiracy theorists get their hands on photos and videos, they often use them to fuel further conspiracy theories. We’ve already seen 911truth.org do that with the bin Laden “confession” video, when they presented the single worst shot of bin Laden as a representative image. Many CTs are STILL debating what hit WTC 2, although that was one of the most photographed and viewed disasters in history. The 6,899 and 6,977 images refer to items in NIST’s archives. Many people gave the rights to their photos and videos to NIST to aid their research. Copies of these (except those of WTC 7, which will be released 12/06) are available for a fee.

It’s DeMartini. This is a case of taking a dead man’s quote out of context. The twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 flying at APPROACH speed, lost in the fog and heading for an airport. The 767s that hit the towers were flying at two to three times that speed, and were loaded with enough fuel tfor the journey to Los Angeles. Structural engineers from around the world admire the fact that the buildings stood as long as they did. NY911truth members: can you name a single structural engineer anywhere in thw world who agrees with your controlled demolition theory? I have yet to hear of one.

Another misstatement. ONE of the pilots, Hani Hanjour, had trouble landing a Cessna 172 and was unable to rent it. However, he not only was a licensed pilot, he had achieved commercial instrument rating. He certainly could fly, but is it surprising that his landing skills were rusty? The head flight instructor at the airport in question said he had no doubt that Hanjour had the skill to fly an airliner into the Pentagon. All 19 hijackers boarded the planes in question, and terrorist pilots flew them. Passengers phoned that the planes had been taken over. The first warning came from Mohammed Atta’s broadcast over flight 11’s radio. The cockpit voice recorder from flight 93 recorded both the hijackers’ takeover of the cockpit, and the passengers’ attempts to retake it. Remains of the hijackers on flights 93 and 77 were recovered. Personal effects were recovered. Moussaoui admitted to being part of the plot.

Considering that there are thousands of 9/11 victims’ family members, I would expect that thousands of questions would remain unanswered by the Commission. As already stated, the commissioners did not guarantee that all questions from all sources would be answered.


It would be easy to write a small book about the many fallacies and false statements in this paragraph. What really caused the towers to collapse? Gravity, aided by structural damage and heat. Every structural engineer, fire safety engineer, and failure analyst agrees. I am not aware of a single dissenter in their ranks. Are you able to match their expertise, truth seekers? Aren’t you concerned that in four and a half years you haven’t produced a single structural engineer who supports your hypotheses? Why did the south tower fall first, despite being struck second? Several factors are involved here. I have no idea why the 9/11 Truth Movement fails to recognize them. 1) The south tower was hit at a point much lower than the north, and had far more weight bearing on the damaged structure: in terms of square footage, the equivalent of the entire Chicago Citigroup Center (right) on top of a weakened, off-center base. 2) Because the south tower was struck closer to a corner, the forces on the damaged area may have been more unbalanced than in the north tower, which was struck head-on and fairly centered between corners. It is plainly visible that the collapse of the south tower began at corner where it was struck by the aircraft. 3) Flight 175 was traveling at approximately 550 mph when it struck the south tower, far faster than flight 11 when it hit the north tower. The additional kinetic energy it carried may have done more damage to structural members and fire protection. 4) The fire protection on the south tower steel was only half as thick (3/4" or 2 cm) as the insulation in the north tower. Source: http://www.911myths.com/html/collapse_time.html Side note to CTs: if steel-framed skyscrapers can't be brought down by fire, why do building codes require that fire protection be applied to their steel?


“…huge arches of pulverized concrete, steel beams and debris being ejected up and outward.” All clear evidence of a controlled demolition – controlled by the laws of physics. Again and again and again I have asked conspiracy theorists this: “If you think the behavior of the falling buildings is unusual, please describe, in as much detail as possible, how the collapses SHOULD have looked.” What SHOULD happen to that concrete and those beams when the top of the building, weighing 150 million pounds, falls? No one has ever answered this question. The collapse of the buildings is perfectly in accordance with the laws of physics. They collapsed that way because they were built that way and damaged that way. Again, ask the experts. “Also, in the white circle is one of many horizontal ejections, known as “squibs,” which occurred far below the line of collapse.”
Of all the CT arguments for controlled demolitions, this is one of the silliest. Their contention is that those “squibs” (their term) result from demolitions charges going off. This shows a complete disregard for how controlled demolitions work, and for the effects of compressed air within a huge structure that is collapsing from the top down. At left is a video still of a large “squib” being ejected as the north tower collapses. CTs often point to this as evidence of controlled demolition. Nothing could be further from the truth. When you watch the video, it’s perfectly clear that the material in the “squib” isn’t being blasted out of the building by an explosion. It’s FLOWING, at exactly the speed that the top is falling, i.e. fairly slowly. No explosion could cause that slowmotion effect. It’s the “plunger” effect of air being compressed.

As the collapse accelerates, you can see these bursts of compressed air become more energetic, because more force is involved. Again, a variation you wouldn’t see with explosives. In an actual controlled demolition, we see “squibs” of debris and dust being ejected at extremely high speed just BEFORE the collapse begins. That’s the way it must be. In none of the three WTC skyscraper collapses does this happen. All of the “squibs” appear after the collapses begin, and they appear individually, here and there. There are some floors lower down on the Towers that exhibit several “squibs.” These are mechanical floors that have direct vents to the building exterior. The compressed air naturally follows the path of least resistance. The Loiseaux family, owners of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., which is widely considered to be the worlds top explosive-demolition firm, calls the idea that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives “Ludicrous.” “The towers fell at virtually the speed of gravity as if there was no resistance from the 90+ floors below the level the planes struck.” First, there is no such thing as “the speed of gravity.” Next, every photograph and every video of the collapses proves the rest of this statement false. The black & white reproduction above, which 911truth.org printed in their pamphlet, proves my point perfectly. Debris that is “free-falling” away from the buildings hits the ground HUNDREDS OF FEET before the bulk of the buildings does. The difference is the resistance of the intervening floors, columns, air pressure, etc. in the collapsing building. This is not rocket science, people. The resistance of each floor was negligible compared to the accelerating, and accumulating, mass of the collapsing portiion above. CTs like to cite an anonymous paper that is actually written by Judy Wood, a dental engineer who apparently has a degree in mechanical engineering (not structural engineering). In that paper Ms. Wood actually states that the entire falling mass, hundreds of millions of pounds, should have STOPPED AT EACH FLOOR on the way down! That’s the kind of “expert” the CTs rely on.


“According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the jet fuel burned off in about 10 minutes and never burned hot enough to melt steel.” This is a classic example of a “straw man” argument. No one involved in the investigation has ever claimed that WTC steel had to melt in order for the collapses to occur. “…But according to Fire Engineering Magazine, steel framed buildings have never collapsed due to fire, including a few that burned for as long as 19 hours. Yet on 9/11 three buildings fell in one day! What’s wrong with this picture?” This question makes it sound as if the three building fires were not related to the same terrorist attack. It’s another straw man argument, which ignores some awfully important facts: • Unlike the WTC buildings, none of the “long-burning” buildings that CTs commonly cite had sustained heavy structural damage IN ADDITION to the fires. None of those buildings had their fire protection blasted off by impact and explosion. All of the buildings in question had ongoing firefighting operations to one extent or another. In several cases, firefighters extinguished the fires. The WTC fires burned completely uncontrolled. Some of the buildings actually had concrete cores that withstood the heat when their steel beams did not. A prime example is the Windsor building fire in Madrid. Here is a somewhat accurate description of that fire: On February 12th, 2005, the Windsor Building in Madrid, a 32-story tower framed in steel reinforced concrete, burned for almost 24 hours, completely eradicating the upper 10 stories of the building. Although the top 10 floors of the building fell, the building itself did not collapse. Again, the building was of concrete core, curtain wall construction, very different from the WTC buildings. It was not hit by an airliner and did not sustain other structural damage prior to the fire. Its exterior steel beams failed due to heat but the concrete core did not. Here’s what Arup, a major fire safety engineering firm, had to say about that fire (emphasis mine): “The fire led to the collapse of virtually all the slab edge bay above 17th floor as well as one internal bay on the north side. The transition floor resisted the impact of the partial collapses. Below this level there was substantial structural damage and deformation, but no significant collapse. The steel perimeter columns, even if they had been protected, or even concrete columns, would not necessarily be expected to survive the effects of such a 10storey blaze. The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident. The role of cores in multiple floor fires is now an immediate area of study required for the industry, and Arup have commenced investigating this issue.”

• •



The Windsor Building, Madrid. Concrete core withstood the fire. Steel frame did not.

Another fire commonly used as “evidence” against the official version of 9/11 is the One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991. The fire burned for 19 hours over 8 floors in this 38-story building. The fire was contained from the 30th story up by the fire department and sprinkler system. Eventually, firefighters abandoned the building because they believed it would collapse. The building was a total ruin, and actually had to be reinforced so that it could be demolished without collapsing. And that damage was caused only by fire that started from a pile of oily rags. Imagine if that building had also been hit by a 767 fully loaded with fuel and traveling at 500 knots. Below is a photo of the Meridian building’s interior. The caption reads, “Here…are interior views of floor areas after the fire. Notice the total consumption of the available fuel and sagging of the floor deck up the three feet between columns.” One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia

Imagine that support columns on several floors had been destroyed prior to the fire, and that protective insulation had been torn from the steel.
Source: http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf


Can office fires reach high enough temperatures to weaken heavy steel columns and beams to the point of th collapse? Consider World Trade Center Building 5. This photo is of a buckled column and beam on the 8 floor of this 9-floor building. Imagine another 100-200 million pounds of weight bearing down on such columns.

Some CTs like to cite the 1975 fire on the 11th floor of WTC 1, which burned for 3 hours but did not cause collapse. Again, these points must be considered: • • • • • • • Firefighters had full access to the fire. The building was not hit by an airliner with resulting structural damage to load-bearing columns and beams. Only the 11th floor had significant fire damage. The fire never left the concrete-enclosed cable shaft on other floors. It was a 3-alarm fire, not a 12-alarm. The fire was not fueled by jet fuel. Fire insulation was not blown off the steel.


Yet another specious claim. There was no “immediate and illegal” removal of material that prevented any examination for explosives. No investigators were prevented from doing their jobs. Some CTs even state categorically that FEMA was not allowed on the site. That is completely false. Nor did any of the hundreds of steelworkers on the site, some of whom built the WTC, report any trace of explosives being used. The quote from Fire Engineering is, as usual, taken out of context. Its author, Bill Manning, was justifiably angry that more steel was not preserved, because he wanted fire safety engineers like himself to be able to study it in order to better answer these questions: "Can the fire service really handle high rise fires adequately? What part did lightweight steel trusses, some reported to have been in excess of 50 feet long, play in the collapse? How effective was the modern sprayed-on steel "fireproofing" employed at the WTC? How relevant to today's fires are the criteria established for the ASTM E-119 fire resistance test developed in the 1920's? When should the defend-in-place strategy for the WTC be used and not used for large high-rise fires? What can be done to make communication by radio possible in high-rise buildings?" (Fire Engineer, February, 2002) Manning’s concern was saving lives in high rise fires. The FEMA and NIST reports addressed these issues, of course, but Manning’s concerns were perhaps more specific. He did not, and does not, support the “controlled demolition” theory, or any conspiracy theory, at all. Let’s take a look at the massive amount of planning, prep work and rigging involved in a controlled demolition. Don’t trust Americans? Here’s Tim Wilson, Australian Civil Engineer, with an overview: “Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. …Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.” www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml More specifically, let’s look at Controlled Demolitions, Inc.’s world record (in terms of building height – 439 feet, or 134 meters), demolition of the J.L. Hudson building in Detroit This building was less than one-third the height of the Twin Towers. From CDI’s website (emphasis mine): Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson’s internal structure was removed by the implosion. Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an


extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties. CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty-four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition. That’s for a single building, less than 1/3 the size of WTC 1 or 2. What No CT has been able to explain is how this CD work could have been accomplished, how the workers and work could have remained unseen, and how it could have withstood the damaged caused by the airplane crashes, explosions and fires. Had there been explosives used, what evidence would all those investigators, steelworkers and demolition workers have seen at Ground Zero? Bill Moore of Brandenburg Industrial Service Co., former president of the National Demolition Association: “Explosives used to demolish steel are called ‘linear-shape charges.’ They cut steel like a hot knife through butter and leave a very distinctive looking cut plus a copper residue. Just putting [normal] explosives on a piece of steel would do nothing unless the amount was huge. That huge amount would have blown out every window in Manhattan from the sound pressure.” Brent Blanchard, senior writer at www.implosionworld.com: “Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event. You just can’t clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days. I just can’t see how it happened that way.” Remember, 1.62 billion pounds of WTC debris was meticulously searched and sorted. As many as 1000 workers from 28 city, state, and federal agencies processed 7000 tons of rubble daily at Fresh Kills. The last truckload of rubble arrived on June 28, 2002. In addition to over 19,000 human remains leading to 1,215 identifications, here are some of the things that search turned up: • • • • Approximately 4,000 personal photographs $78,318.47 in domestic and foreign currency 54,000 personal items such as identification cards and driver licenses And not a single trace of explosive devices


NYPD Detectives Inspecting World Trade Center Debris

Source: NIST

And what about the big debris: the steel? Were the investigators hindered in any way from taking what they needed? Some CTs contend that investigators weren’t allowed into Ground Zero at all. Here’s what Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team, said in his testimony to the House of Representatives: "There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.”

More about FEMA and Ground Zero: "At the beginning of October, the team visited the collapsed and damaged buildings at Ground Zero and over a period of six days collected a significant amount of data on building performance under extreme conditions."

And more: "Team members toured what was left of the 16-acre World Trade Center plaza, interviewed officials and eyewitnesses, and examined remnants of fallen structures at the Staten Island landfill and at salvage yards. Steel samples were cut and catalogued for further study, and some were taken back to WPI for analysis (see the "deep mystery" of melted steel)". "The investigation consisted of visiting Ground Zero, a survey of the WTC site, land-fill and steel recycling centers, review of videotape records, eyewitness accounts, interviews with building design teams, and analysis using computer models."


WTC steel recovered from the point of aircraft impact. Source: NIST See more of the recovered steel and NIST testing it here: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover More on the recovery effort at Fresh Kills here: http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf


Above, it says, “Remember: photos don’t lie, governments do…” Note the indignant tone. Well, we’ve already seen that in the hands of the “Truth” movement, photos can be quite deceiving. Are you ready for a whopper, folks? In the lower of the two photos above, we’re told that the pile of debris at center is the remains of WTC 7, which has collapsed “into such a small pile of rubble…Notice the adjacent buildings were barely damaged, which is another signature of controlled demolition.” Well, folks, THE BUILDING AT LEFT IN THAT PHOTO IS WTC 7. IT HASN’T COLLAPSED YET. The rubble you see is from WTC buildings 1 and 6. The building at right is the Verizon building. So, “Truth Movement,” would you like to explain how a building that hasn’t collapsed is a “signature of controlled demolition?” Below is a better view of that scene. Note the size of the beam in the foreground compared to the fireman, and keep in mind that WTC 1 was nearly 200 meters away from where the photo was taken. And please remember this incredible violence when reading the firefighters’ quotes about WTC 7 that follow.


I want to take a moment to step back and get some perspective here. Let’s remember that we’re talking about the terrorist attacks of 9/11. 2,986 people died, 2,749 of them in New York. Every day, countless thousands of people struggle with the effects of the attacks. This is as serious as life gets. It’s not something to play games with. And that is exactly what this “Truth Movement” is doing. They’re playing games, ignoring the evidence, being deliberately deceiving, and hoping that no one will notice. All to further a political agenda. Hmm, sounds familiar, doesn’t it? And we’re a long way from being done with their 4-page pamphlet.
Note: the NIST report on WTC 7 has not been released as of May, 2006. Real investigations take time and enormous manpower. Much of that same manpower was needed for the WTC 1 & 2 investigations. “Building 7, 1 block north of the towers, 47 stories tall. No plane crash. Minor fires.” Well, that didn’t take long. “MINOR FIRES?” The author of the pamphlet is either lying or knows nothing about WTC 7. Either way, that statement has no business being in a “truth” pamphlet. The fires in WTC 7 started right after the collapse of WTC 1 and spread uncontrolled throughout the day. By mid-afternoon, the building was an inferno, with smoke pouring from nearly every visible floor on the south side (the side that was severely damaged by the collapse of WTC 1). A steady wind is blowing from the north.

The views that CTs never show. Late afternoon, looking west to east. Not convinced that there’s an inferno? Watch this video: http://911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi (photo at above right is a still from the video) 911truth.org also neglects to mention that WTC 7 housed up to 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel to supply


emergency generators.

WTC 7 as collapse begins. View from Northwest, 5:20 p.m.

“Note the kinking on the top which indicates an implosion occurred.” Wrong. There is absolutely no indication, nor has there ever been any evidence, that the collapse was the result of a demolition. The kinking on the top occurs as WTC 7 visibly begins to collapse. What we can’t see in this image is that the two mechanical penthouses on the roof collapsed first. The collapse began on the sides of the building where the majority of fire and damage was: the south and east.

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y As we will read below, WTC 7 was creaking and groaning hours before the collapse. The fire department believed it was too damaged to stand and began clearing the area at around 2:30 p.m. The collapse of the south tower was a surprise. The collapse of WTC 7 was expected. That’s why there were no casualties. Here’s a quote from FDNY Chief of Department Daniel Nigro, who was calling the shots on the scene : "The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.” [Fire Engineering, 10/2002] To better judge the condition of WTC 7, let’s take a look at some more quotes from the experts who were on the scene. These are collected on the excellent website Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories: http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm The bolding is mine.


Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02] Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7? Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site. Firehouse: How many companies? Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty. A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. …There was no hydrant pressure…Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.” "They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't]


lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/ Nigro_Daniel.txt

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." Chief Cruthers http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC /Cruthers.txt "Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC /Ryan_William.txt

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out? Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html


WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02] In this video clip Ashley Banfield of MSNBC is interviewing a woman when WTC 7 collapses. Newsman Brian Williams says, “What we’ve been fearing all day has finally happened…” http://msnbc.com/m/mp/dwvideo.asp?v=n_banfield_sevenwtc_010911 Many CTs claim that WTC 7 was not in the range of major debris from WTC 1. They are absolutely wrong, as the photo below shows. It was taken after the collapse of WTC 1 and before the collapses of WTC 7.

Back to the pamphlet: “It disappears in 6 ! seconds, collapsing perfectly inward, virtually at the speed of free fall, symmetrically into its own footprint – same way, same day as the Towers.” “Truth” seekers, please explain, in as much detail as possible, how WTC 7 SHOULD have fallen. The claim that the building collapsed in 6 ! seconds is false. Below is the seismic reading from the LamontDoherty Earth Observatory, showing the rumbling of WTC 7, ,followed by massive collapse, followed by the north and west walls falling. The major portion of the collapse is recorded over 18 seconds.


What doesn’t this graph show? Evidence of demolitions explosions. What about CT claims that seismic data does support the WTC controlled demolition theory? "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." – Arthur Lerner-Lam, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, New York.


Nor did WTC 7 fall into a neat little pile. I often see CT claims that the pile was “2 or 3 stories” high. The pile was10 stories from basement to top, and debris from WTC 7 caused severe damage to the buildings around it.

The WTC 7 Pile.

Severe damage done to 30 West Broadway by WTC 7. This building is still under scaffolding in 2006.


“The 9/11 final report didn’t even mention Building 7. That omission alone brands the report as a fraud upon the American people.” That’s quite an ignorant statement. The Commission report concerned itself with the buildings that were directly attacked. It didn’t mention any of the other 45 buildings that suffered collateral damage. And should the 9/11 Commission have guessed at what the findings would be of the ongoing WTC 7 investigation? Should I label YOUR omission of the ongoing investigation a “fraud upon the American people?”

It’s dishonest to suggest that these people reported pre-planted explosives at the WTC, or ito imply that any evidence of pre-planted explosives – or their effects – was ever detected by any means.
The following comments, up to the Patricia Ondrovic story, are taken from my analysis of the video “Loose Change.”

Much of the case for “controlled demolition” of the Twin Towers (although, curiously, not of WTC 7) rests on the fact that many witnesses reported hearing and seeing secondary explosions after the planes hit. I’ve never been surprised in the least by these reports. Why wouldn’t there be secondary explosions, and things that sound like explosions or bombs, in a disaster of that type and magnitude, in buildings of that type and magnitude? I have yet to hear from a CT why that’s surprising. One thing we often don’t know is exactly when and where those explosions were heard. For instance, how many people, in both towers, heard, but didn’t see, flight 175 hit the south tower and reported that as a big secondary explosion? How many people were reporting the same event, but when those reports are listed, it looks like many events? We don’t know. And how many of these explosions were electrical systems shorting, transformers and switchgear blowing, generators failing, steam pipes bursting, flaming debris and steel beams falling down elevator shafts, etc. Several reports call the sound of the actual collapse of tower 2 a “huge explosion.” Electrical explosions do happen in skyscrapers: Electrical Fire Hurts 6 at Trade Center An air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night, the authorities said. Six people were injured, none of them seriously, but the 110-story twin towers did not have to be evacuated, the authorities said. The fire was first reported at 10:02 P.M. in a 13,000volt transformer in the Trade Center's refrigeration plant, which provides air conditioning and ventilation for the complex, the Fire Department and the Port Authority said. The electrical fire, which went to three alarms, was brought under control at 11:24 P.M., said a Fire Department official, Lieutenant Erick Weekes. NEW YORK TIMES July 24, 1992 Remarks on the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing by Fire Chief Donald J. Burns: “Usually, a report of an explosion in a high-rise indicates an electrical problem such as a large short or a transformer explosion.“ Go here to see an impressive video of a transformer explosion: http://www.alfatransformer.com/video/transformer_explosion.mpg


What the various explosions reported would have to do with controlled demolitions, I don’t know. When you demolish a building with explosives, you set the charges to go off in a precise order – to the millisecond – at demolition time, not in a random fashion for nearly an hour. Some CTs have suggested that bombs were placed at different locations within the building. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for why that would be. Large bombs would really mess up your carefully-prepared controlled demolition. What’s more, no one I know of has come up with any plausible explanation of how this massive amount of CD work could have been accomplished. Conspiracy believers, please describe, in as much detail as possible, what you would EXPECT to hear and see after a fully-loaded airliner hit a skyscraper at top speed, causing enormous damage, and the building caught fire to the point of collapse? And when a building that weighs nearly a billion pounds does start to collapse, what would you EXPECT to see and hear at the lower levels? To be surprised by what did happen at the WTC, you must have some expectation of what SHOULD have happened. So I’d like the CTs to stop and think about that. More than that, I’d like to HEAR what they have to say on the matter. And if they can’t come up with an answer, I hope they will talk to the experts: structural engineers, fire safety engineers, and failure analysts. Once I was driving on the highway and an 18-wheeler blew a tire as it pulled alongside me on the left. The tire was just a few feet from my window. I described it as “like a cannon going off in my ear.” But no cannon went off in my ear, nor did I go looking for cannons or posting to internet forums about the conspiracy that puts cannons next to my ear when I’m driving. I was using a common simile to describe a dramatic event. Please keep in mind that I’m not disputing what witnesses say they saw and heard. I’m just suggesting that there are many plausible explanations for those phenomena that don’t involve implausible bombs. A good example of this is the story of EMT Patricia Ondrovic. She had been outside her ambulance on Vesey street near WTC 6 for about 25 minutes when the south tower collapsed. Just before that collapse, a supervisor announced that there might be an incoming plane. This was a big surprise to her, since she had thought the damage to the towers was caused by bombs. This is a very rough summary of some of the things she recalls as she ran for her life: • She tried to enter the lobby of WTC 6 but was told by security to get away. She saw a series of at least six flashes go off along the ceiling of the WTC 6 lobby, accompanied by popping noises. She believed that those flashes were demolitions explosives going off. She ran north and west as at least three parked cars exploded around her, one of them setting her coat on fire. While in North Park she believed she saw an airplane explode in a fireball over New Jersey. She hooked up with another ambulance about 15 blocks north and told the driver to take them out of the city, to drive to Westchester. A supervisor stopped the ambulance and told it to turn back and go towards the WTC. She tried to refuse. She had a panic attack and was having trouble breathing from all the dust she had inhaled, and

• •

• •




was treated in the back of the ambulance, then taken to St. Vincent's Medical Center. • It wasn't until a week later that she learned it was the collapse of the south tower she had been running from. She had thought it was a bomb.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110048.PDF http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-rescuer-saw-explosions-inside-wtc.html That's what terror can do, even to someone who deals with life-and-death emergencies on a daily basis. Now, several people reported seeing flashes and hearing popping noises at the Twin Towers, particularly near the base of the south tower just before it fell. CTs take those reports as evidence of demolitions charges going off. But Patricia Ondrovic had a similar experience at WTC 6. We know that no demolitions charges went off there. Despite heavy damage, the building stood through the catastrophe until it was torn down after 9/11. No explosives were there. Again, there is absolutely no evidence of any explosive demolition of any of the WTC buildings on 9/11. Zero. Oh, but what about this guy?

I’m going to be very generous right now, 9/11truthers, and just say this: if you can find someone LESS credible about this issue than Paul Isaac Jr., drop me a line. I’ll give you a gold star. (Side note to those who’ve read my “Loose Change” analysis: amongst other accomplishments, Isaac gave Dylan Avery the idea of the “mysterious” and “unexplained” CDI demolitions of the old gas storage tanks in Maspeth, Queens! And he’s the one arguing bitterly with Jason Bermas at Ground Zero on the “Extras” section of LC2E. The short honeymoon between Isaac and other 9/11 CTs was followed by a rancorous divorce.)

It should be obvious to anyone who has read this far why the authors of the pamphlet don’t have answers. But I’ll play along and get through this. Flight 77 did not make a 16-foot hole in the Pentagon. The hole was approximately 90 feet wide, which is perfectly in accordance with an airliner striking a heavily reinforced concrete building. The photo above doesn’t show anything about the hole: not in this scan, nor on the pamphlet itself. Where was the wreckage of the fuselage and jet engines? Mostly inside the building. Tons of


it was recovered. A lot of debris was collected on the lawn. The remains of all passengers and crew but one (a 2-year-old) were recovered and positively identified. Dozens of people saw the American Airlines 757 fly over bumper-to-bumper traffic on I-395 and crash into the Pentagon. Over 8,000 people were on the scene after the crash: to my knowledge not a single one has supported any theory that AA flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Hani Hanjour had earned a commercial, instrument-rated pilot’s license. We pay the FBI to collect evidence of crimes. Are the authors of the pamphlet seriously suggesting that the FBI should not have done so? Should the “government employees” have left the aircraft wreckage for bystanders to pick up, or perhaps have held a yard sale? Do investigators let journalists rummage through forensic evidence? Are you kidding? This is absolutely disgusting, “truthsters.” Why does the rank-and-file of your group support such idiocy? Rather than jam the rest of this document with photos and other evidence that flight 77 really and truly hit the Pentagon, I’ll direct you to the “Loose Change” analysis I referred to above. It covers this extensively. To view the HTML version, go to http://tinyurl.com/jnfp8 and use subject index to navigate. To download the 5 Mb .doc file, go to http://tinyurl.com/epp82 and see pages 25-34 and 40-60.

More “questigations,” no evidence. “Executive-level stand-down?” When you come up with evidence for that, truthsters, you’ve got a bestseller on your hands. I’ll buy a copy for everyone I know. Until then, it’s just an empty catchphrase. There was massive confusion on 9/11, and poor communication. By the time our leaders were able to do much more than gather information, it was all over but the shouting. Here’s a little bit about this subject, from an email I sent recently. My first reaction to seeing Bush with “My Pet Goat,” because I hate him so much, was "look at that incompetent fool sitting there like a deer in the headlights for 7 minutes while America is being attacked!" On reflection, I don't think his behavior was admirable, but I don't think it was particularly strange either. I think it's significant that none of the U.S. principals’ behavior in the first hour of the attacks makes them look like particularly effective leaders. There's certainly nothing I've seen that indicates foreknowledge on their part. I suppose you could claim that they were playing dumb, but you'd still have to prove foreknowledge to back that up, and you'd have to apply the same standard to the lousy communication between FAA and NORAD. It's important to keep in mind that no one had ever practiced coordinating a response to 4 simultaneous hijackings. The main lesson I take from the reaction to the events of that morning is that the communication between individuals and between agencies needed to be greatly improved. A good source of information about “what happened when” on 9/11 is “The Complete 9/11 Timeline.” It was compiled by CTs, so take its conclusions with a healthy dose of skepticism, but it’s the most exhaustive source I’ve seen for this information. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project


Why hasn’t anyone been held accountable? Finally, that’s a good question. The closest I can come to an answer is that 1) the failures that lead to 9/11 were systemic, 2) bureaucracies are good at covering their asses and deflecting responsibility, 3) the political party in charge in the White House also has a majority in the Congress. If the opposition party had had the power of subpoena, I think it’s a safe bet that we’d know more and that more heads would have rolled. To me, the most important questions are: • What were the failures that lead to 9/11? (yes, the 9/11 Commission addressed many of these), and • What has been done to correct them? If you care about these questions, 911truth.org, then make a real effort to push for answers. Making wild, unsupported accusations isn’t going to get it done. Again, do you have a single piece of evidence that implicates anyone not already named in the “official version” in the planning or execution of the attacks?

More blazing ignorance, which the authors of this pamphlet would know if they had bothered to check any information gathered after October, 2001. Nor do those authors seem to understand the concepts that several people can share the same name, and that criminals sometimes steal identities. In September, 2001, FBI director Mueller did say that not all of the hijackers’ identities could be “legally” proven. Real investigations take time. On November 2, 2001, here is what Mueller said: “The FBI has resolved questions about the identities of the 19 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks and has discovered places outside the United States where the conspiracy was planned, FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday. Saudi Arabian officials and others have questioned whether some of the hijackers identified by the FBI in the weeks after the attacks used stolen identifications. Mueller said those questions have been answered. “We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible," he said. Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/02/attack/main316806.shtml Mueller’s statement to the Joint Intelligence Inquiry Committee in 2002. Is here: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092602mueller.html Page 3 of this paper shows the connections between the 19 terrorists: http://www.insna.org/Connections-Web/Volume24-3/Valdis.Krebs.web.pdf The Saudi government says that 15 of the hijackers were their citizens and that their families were notified of their deaths: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm A good look at the truth behind the “still alive” claims is at the excellent website 911myths.com: http://911myths.com/html/still_alive.html


Here’s a question for people who think that the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks in order to justify invading Iraq: why did they use 15 Saudis as “scapegoats,” and not 15 (or 20) Iraqis? And a similar question for those same credophiles: if the U.S. government “conspirators” are so fiendishly brilliant and capable of covering up the most amazing plot in history, why didn’t they bother to plant a few WMDs in Iraq?

…and what does this have to do with proving that 9/11 was orchestrated or “allowed” to happen by the people who wanted to invade Iraq? This is another whopper of a logical fallacy. I doubt that there are many people who don’t think the Bush administration lied and took advantage of the attacks of 9/11 to further their agenda in Iraq. That’s a long, long way from providing evidence that they were complicit in the 9/11 attacks. The PNAC document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” did not in any way call for a “New Pearl Harbor.” According to that election-year document, the main defense priority for the United States should be the funding (hundreds of billions of dollars) and development of a primarily space-based ballistic missile shield: “As will be argued more fully below, effective ballistic missile defenses will be the central element in the exercise of American power and the projection of U.S. military forces abroad.” Again, I cover this issue in depth in my “Loose Change” analysis: download at http://tinyurl.com/epp82 and go to pages 7-10 and 127-137. Here is an excerpt from my comments: Now, if you wanted to increase defense spending in the areas that the PNAC recommends, what is the LAST thing you’d want to do? Answer: get involved in a ground war and subsequent occupation of a country where many citizens are fighting a guerillastyle campaign against you and against each other with small arms and IEDs made from cell phones and 10,000 tons of old artillery shells. The disaster in Iraq is the opposite of what the PNAC would want to happen to help effect the military transformation they desired in 2000. So why did those same people lie to us and use fear of terrorism as a pretext to invade Iraq? Because they thought replacing Saddam Hussein would be easy. They didn’t listen to the generals, they ignored the intelligence reports, and they expected to be greeted with open arms by the Iraqi people after ousting Hussein. These are the people the CTs think are so clever that they can hide a massive conspiracy. They’re the same neo-cons who are under investigation for their petty revenge against Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. They couldn’t even handle THAT without screwing up.


More logical fallacies, and more attempts to “poison the well.” Because governments can lie, the U.S. government committed the attacks of 9/11? Because a rabid anti-communist had a scheme for invading Cuba in 1962 – a scheme that was summarily rejected – the U.S. government committed the attacks of 9/11? Does history really “tell us” that every war since 1848 was precipitated by staged incidents?
1848-1849 First Italian Independence War, 1859 Second Italian Independence War, 1866 Third Italian Independence War, 1848-1849 Second Anglo-Sikh War, 1848-1849 Hungarian Revolt of 1848, 1848-1851 First war of Schleswig (aka First Danish-German War, aka Three Years' War), 1850-1865 Taiping Rebellion, 1851-1853 8th Cape Frontier War, 1852 Brazil, Uruguay's Colorado government and Entre Ríos and Corrientes (Argentinean provinces)against Argentinean government under Brigadier General Juan Manuel de Rosas, 1852 Second Burmese War, 1853-1856 Crimean War, 1856 Campaign of 1856-1857, 1856-1860 Second Opium War, 1857-1858 Indian Mutiny (aka the First War Of Indian Independence), 1857-1901 Caste War of Yucatán, 1859-1863 Federal War (Guerra Federal) in Venezuela, 1861-1865 American Civil War, 1862-1867 French invasion of Mexico, 1864 Second war of Schleswig (aka Second Danish-German War), 1864-1868 Snake War, 1864-1870 War of the Triple Alliance (aka Paraguay War), 1865-1866 Chincha Islands War (Spain against Chile and Peru), 1866 Austro-Prussian War (aka Seven Weeks War), 1866-1868 Red Cloud's War, 18681869 Boshin War in Japan,1870-1871 Franco-Prussian War, 1872-1873 Modoc War, 1873-1903 Netherlands colonial war in Aceh (aka Thirty Years War), 1874-1875 Red River War, 1876-1877 Black Hills War, 1877-1878 9th Cape Frontier War, 1877-1878 RussoTurkish War, 1877-78, 1878-1880 Second Anglo-Afghan War, 1879 Anglo-Zulu War, 1879-1884 War of the Pacific, 1880-1881 Gun War, 1880-1881 First Boer War, 1881-1885 Franco-Chinese War, 1885 North-West Rebellion, 1885-1886 Third Anglo-Burmese War, 1890 Dog Tax War in New Zealand, 1894-1895 First Sino-Japanese War, 1895-1896 First Italo-Abyssinian War, 1896 Anglo-Zanzibar War, 1897 First Greco-Turkish War, (aka the Thirty Days' War), 1897-1900 Boxer Rebellion in China, 1898 Spanish-American War, 1899-1902 Second Boer War, 1899-1902 Thousand Days War, 1899-1913 Philippine-American War 1903: Ottomans vs Macedonian rebels, 1904: Germany vs Namibia, 1904-05: Japan vs Russia, 1910-20: Mexican revolution, 1911: Chinese Revolution, 1911-12: Italian-Ottoman war, 1912-13: Balkan wars, 1915: the Ottoman empire slaughters Armenians, 1914-18: World War I, 1916: Kyrgyz revolt against Russia, 1917-21: Soviet revolution, 1928-37: Chinese civil war, 1931: Japanese Manchurian War, 1932-33: Soviet Union vs Ukraine, 1934: Mao's Long March, 1936: Italy's invasion of Ethiopia, 1936-37: Stalin's purges, 1936-39: Spanish civil war, 1939-45: World War II (55 million) including holocaust and Chinese revolutiion, 1946-49: Chinese civil war, 1946-49: Greek civil war, 1946-54: France-Vietnam war, 1947: Partition of India and Pakistan, 1947: Taiwan's uprising against the Kuomintang, 1948-1958: Colombian civil war, 1948-1973: Arab-Israeli wars, 1949-: Indian Muslims vs Hindus, 1950-53: Korean war, 1952-59: Kenya's Mau Mau insurrection, 1954-62: French-Algerian war, 1958-61: Mao's "Great Leap Forward", 1960-90: South Africa vs Africa National Congress, 1960-96: Guatemala's civil war, 1961-2003: Kurds vs Iraq, 1962-75: Mozambique Frelimo vs Portugal, 1964-73: USA-Vietnam war, 1965: second India-Pakistan war over Kashmir, 1965-66: Indonesian civil war, 1966-69: Mao's "Cultural Revolution", 1966-: Colombia's civil war, 1967-70: Nigeria-Biafra civil war, 1968-80: Rhodesia's civil war, 1969-79: Idi Amin, Uganda, 1969-02: IRA Norther Ireland's civil war, 1969-79: Francisco Macias Nguema, Equatorial Guinea, 1971: Pakistan-Bangladesh civil war, 1972-: Philippines vs Muslim separatists, 1972: Burundi's civil war, 1972-79: Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's civil war, 1974-91: Ethiopian civil war, 1975-78: Menghitsu, Ethiopia, 1975-79: Khmer Rouge, Cambodia, 1975-89: Boat people, Vietnam, 1975-90: civil war in Lebanon, 1975-87: Laos' civil war, 1975-2002: Angolan civil war, 1976-83: Argentina's military regime, 1976-93: Mozambique's civil war, 197698: Indonesia-East Timor civil war, 1976-2005: Indonesia-Aceh (GAM) civil war, 1979: Vietnam-China war, 1979-88: the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan, 1980-88: Iraq-Iran war, 1980-92: Sendero Luminoso - Peru's civil war, 1980-92: El Salvador's civil war, 1980-99: Kurds vs Turkey, 1981-90: Nicaragua vs Contras, 1982-90: Hissene Habre, Chad, 1983-2002: Sri Lanka's civil war, 1983-2002: Sudanese civil war, 1986-: Indian Kashmir's civil war, 1987-: Palestinian Intifada, 1988-2001: Afghanistan civil war, 1988-2004: Somalia's civil war, 1989-: Liberian civil war, 1989-: Uganda vs Lord's Resistance Army, 1991: Gulf War - large coalition against Iraq to liberate Kuwait, 1991-97: Congo's civil war, 1991-2000: Sierra Leone's civil war, 1991-: Russia-Chechnya civil war, 1991-94: ArmeniaAzerbaijan war, 1992-96: Tajikstan's civil war war, 1992-96: Yugoslavia's civil war, 1992-99: Algerian civil war, 1993-97: Congo Brazzaville's civil war, 1993-2005: Burundi's civil war, 1994: Rwanda's civil war, 1995-: Pakistani Sunnis vs Shiites, 1995-: Maoist rebellion in Nepal, 1998-: Congo/Zaire's war - Rwanda and Uganda vs Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia, 1998-2000: Ethiopia-Eritrea war, 1999: Kosovo's liberation war - NATO vs Serbia, 2001: Afghanistan's liberation war - USA & UK vs Taliban, 2002-: Cote d'Ivoire's civil war, 2003: Iraq's liberation war - USA, UK and Australia vs Saddam Hussein, 2003-: Sudan vs JEM/Darfur, 2003-: Iraq's civil war, 2004-: Sudan vs SPLM & Eritrea.


The 911truth.org pamphlet concludes with a call to action and an encouragement to read “The New Pearl Harbor” by theologian David Ray Griffin. And that’s the end of the pamphlet. On its 4 small pages, I count 36 “complex question” fallacies, 45 statements that evidence does not support, and 29 other misleading statements. 110 items that don’t reflect the truth. Nice job, “truth movement.” Here’s a summary of the call to action from the NY911truth.org website (emphasis mine): If we as a people refuse to demand truth and justice on a matter this grave, we will deserve our leaders' contempt and embolden them to further treachery. (They and their predecessors have, after all, gotten away with the now documented lies of the Tonkin Resolution, the JFK and MLK assassinations, Iran-Contra, Flight 800, the Waco Davidian murders, the Pentagon's "missing" $2.2 trillion, etc, etc. without consequence. Why should they start worrying about what the "sovereign people" think now?) We have to stand up and draw the line somewhere or we can kiss our hopes for security, solvency and democracy goodbye. By the way, in case you haven’t heard of the “missing $2.2 trillion” claim, it is based on statements by Donald Rumsfeld in 2001 that the Pentagon didn’t have a single accounting system to track all of its transactions, and that additional CPAs were being hired to unsnarl the various systems. The suggestion that the money disappeared is completely wrong, and Rumsfeld was not speaking of “black budget” projects. Individual DOD departments were always subject to budgetary oversight and audits. The amount mentioned was $2.6 trillion (over a period of many years), so 911truth.org was only off by $400 billion. This issue was brought to the public’s attention BY THE GOVERNMENT. ***** Below is the New York chapter of 911truth.org’s statement about the premiere of the movie “United 93,” at which victims’ families were in attendance while 9/11 “truthers” shouted “9/11 was a lie!” I witnessed that disgusting display. That’s where I got the pamphlet discussed above. From ny911truth.org:

United 93 Debut
Tuesday April 25th, the controversial new Universal Studios film on Flight 93 was screened for an invitation-only audience at the Ziegfeld Theater in midtown Manhattan. This dramatization of the official myth is yet another slick Hollywood production perpetuating the account of 9/11 which remains unproven and fails when opened to critical examination. The event which opened this year's Tribeca Film Festival dominated the whole block with a tented area for the audience to enter the theater, lines of black limousines, glitzy people, and a cadre of media filming the scene. About a dozen 9/11 truth activists were there, including 2 producers of Loose Change 2, Dylan and Jason. Though small in number, our message was heard and visuals were seen by most of the thousand or so people attending. We were shouting lines like "The truth is not a movie!" and "9/11 was the New Pearl Harbor!". At one point several media teams converged on our side of the street to film and interview us. When the film opens in theaters nationwide, the movement will have an important opportunity to raise awareness of the official deception. Reader, keep in mind that no one in the ‘truth movement” had SEEN the movie, which has received wide critical acclaim. Nor are they able to present a single piece of evidence that the story presented is not true. But hey have no problem calling the relatives of victims suckers for believing the “official account.” In their rants to the media they recited almost every bit of disinformation that’s discussed in this document.


Note how they proudly state “At one point several media teams converged on our side of the street to film and interview us.” Now look at the banner they displayed the entire time:

Leaders of the “Truth Movement,” have you given the public ANY reason to believe YOU? Have you been more “truthful” than the people in the government you despise? Readers, if you are disturbed by the dishonest tactics practiced by this “truth movement,” let them know: Contact Les of NY911truth.org: jazzyday@earthlink.net or info@ny911truth.org For info on NYC activities: 212-714-7147 The New York “911 Truth Movement” sponsors events on most Sundays at 6:30 p.m. at St. Mark’s Church inthe-Bowery at 131 E. 10th St. On most Saturdays, weather permitting, some “Truthers” gather at Ground Zero and distribute their literature. An extensive list of internet links for further research is here: 911getthefacts.blogspot.com If you see misinformation about 9/11 being spread on the internet, make your views known. If you hear misinformation being spread on the radio, call and email the show’s producers. If you see protesters on the street giving misinformation to the public, let them know it’s wrong. Thank you for helping to combat ignorance! A bit about me: Although I have been accused by paranoiacs in the “truth movement” of being a government “disinformation” agent, I do not represent, and am not supported by, any organization. My interest in these matters is purely personal and is not motivated by political or financial gain. My politics are well to the left of center. I have always had a deep dislike for the administration of George W. Bush, and I don’t believe it is necessary to lie to discredit its policies. Since becoming aware of the many bogus 9/11 conspiracy claims, I have also developed a deep dislike for people who, in the name of “truth,” spread misinformation and who present questions and allegations as evidence. I welcome any well-researched corrections to this work and will, if they pass muster, incorporate them into any revisions. Please email them to itmatters@mail.com –Mark Roberts
FAIR USE NOTICE: While this document consists of significant amounts of original content, in order to explore and advance understanding of the events surrounding 9/11, it has been necessary to reference some material that is copyrighted. Such use falls under the 'fair use' provisions set out in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Equivalent provisions exist in EU law. Thus, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information, specifically for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner


To top